Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why It Is Right To Do Good To Others
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4492 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 5 of 304 (403984)
06-06-2007 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Stile
06-05-2007 4:13 PM


There are two questions to answer:
What is good?
-because we need to know what it is in order to do it
Why do people do good?
-what sort of motivations make a person want to do good
what is good ... nothing is good .. there is no absolute .. good is dependant on a large number variables which are also dependent on the specific circumstances at the time of the act .
btw do we need to do good .. where is it writen .. is doing no harm not a viable stand point .. or just not doing bad ??
why do people do good ...they dont they do what the THINK is good , the reasoning process that a individual uses to pick out the good from the non good is .. well individual.
the motivation to do good again is individual , doing good as its own reward , good good to seek advantage , doing good in the hope of reciprecation ..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Stile, posted 06-05-2007 4:13 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Stile, posted 06-06-2007 11:30 AM ikabod has replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4492 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 22 of 304 (404205)
06-07-2007 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Stile
06-06-2007 11:30 AM


Plenty of things are good.
Do you deny that saving an innocent life is good?
btw do we need to do good
Yes, we do.
.. where is it writen
Right here in this thread, I've just typed it all out.
.. is doing no harm not a viable stand point .. or just not doing bad ??
No, not good enough. In order to increase the amount of good in this world we need to do good things.
plesae name one unquestionalbe good
so you justed typed that we need to to good , that needing to do just makes it your view which may or may not be a good thing ,
history is full of people doing what in thier view they was good and right .. but are now jugded to be heinous crimes ...
as to saving a innocent life .. is it good .. well what if you saved the life of innocent 5 year old .. who later in life due to the trauma of having their life saved suffers a mental break down and goes on a killing rampage .. was that a good act ...
so in order to increase the the good in the world , not sure how you can measure this ,is it good to let a few suffer if the majority have more good , thus making a larger total good .
or should you do good for just a few at the expence of the majority , because doing good is better than doing no harm ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Stile, posted 06-06-2007 11:30 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Stile, posted 06-07-2007 4:15 PM ikabod has replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4492 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 36 of 304 (404345)
06-08-2007 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Stile
06-07-2007 4:15 PM


Re: Going out on a limb to test a hypothesis, any takers?
A specific example:
A guy is holding a box and asks me to open the door for him, in order to help him get inside. I open the door for him.
..and so you open the door letting the bomber and his bomb hidden in the box into the building
you seem to keep missing the ponit .. we are not equiped to tell what is a good act , we can only do what we "think" is right at the time .
An abstract example:
Saving an innocent life.
so how much time do to you take to check how innocent the life is , and how long that innocent will last , and if that will lead to "bad" events out doing any good created by the saving.
you can not make such judgments on what will increase the total world good , we act on what makes us feel/think that we are doing good , reguardless of the reality of the event and its consequenceis .
Go ahead, try to think of "a (morally) good thing" that is not based directly on increasing the inner-feelings of another person. Do that, and I must seach again for what good actually is.
i dont think i ever said "good" does not increasing the inner-feelings of another person , and as morality is all about person to person interactions thats what you would expect " good" to do .
what im saying is you cant pick a "good" and say this will increasing the inner-feelings of another person/s
reguradless of what you label your actions , good , bad , indifferent , right , wrong , those are you choice of what you desided to do , and your reasons for so doing are personal , ie scoring point so you get a good after life , cos douing good makes you feel good about yourself , cos you have been educated to act towards others in a certain way .
you are not doing any absolute good , you are mere doing what you need to do to be able to live your life in a way acceptable to you .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Stile, posted 06-07-2007 4:15 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by purpledawn, posted 06-08-2007 8:48 AM ikabod has not replied
 Message 42 by Stile, posted 06-08-2007 11:59 AM ikabod has replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4492 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 71 of 304 (405079)
06-11-2007 6:54 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Stile
06-08-2007 11:59 AM


Re: Going out on a limb to test a hypothesis, any takers?
That's exactly what I'm saying too. However, you can pick "an action", and if you're able to obtain information on the results of that action you can say if it was "good" or "bad".
so are we agreed there are no absolute "good" s
you open the door for the person , cos you think it is the correct social thing to do , and you hope it has a positive effect on the person .....all of which comes from how you where ( in the larges sense ) educated ... change the education change what you consider to be good .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Stile, posted 06-08-2007 11:59 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Stile, posted 06-11-2007 2:26 PM ikabod has replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4492 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 82 of 304 (405300)
06-12-2007 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Stile
06-11-2007 2:26 PM


Re: Education free
The action being good or bad only depends on the person acted upon. In this example, it only depends on the guy having the door opened for him.
Buddy's happy the door was opened for him.
-It was good to hold the door open if I was highly educated.
-It was good to hold the door open if I was uneducated.
Buddy's horrified the door was opened for him.
-It was bad to hold the door open if I was highly educated.
-It was bad to hold the door open if I was uneducated.
Education of the door-opener doesn't matter. It matter's if Buddy wanted the door opened for him or not. Education may help us read Buddy, to help us understand if it's more likely he'll want the door held open... but it really doesn't matter.
so you acept that your act is not "good" , now follow on and realise Buddy's reaction to you opening the door is due to Buddy's upbringing/education .. thus buddy's responce is not validating your act as good or bad , but is a trained responce , good and bad do not enter in to the equation .
Buddy might be horrified at you opening the door , because its a "good lableld " act , but he has being trained that he is lower status to you and he should have opened the door for you , he now thinks he is in your debt because you performed a " good " act on him ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Stile, posted 06-11-2007 2:26 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Stile, posted 06-12-2007 9:47 AM ikabod has not replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4492 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 93 of 304 (405488)
06-13-2007 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Jon
06-13-2007 1:00 AM


Re: Education free
well said echo the entire post .
the basic problem is you can only get a score of good and bad from a external observer , who has a crib sheet of every possible act and has pre rated then G or b , and what we are talking about is some god like being , who can then hands down rules and regulation , so you can look up your score ( if you chosse to follow that set of rules ).
other wise its just humans being human and making the world up as they go along .
Edited by ikabod, : re wording

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Jon, posted 06-13-2007 1:00 AM Jon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Stile, posted 06-13-2007 11:04 AM ikabod has replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4492 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 101 of 304 (405657)
06-14-2007 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Stile
06-13-2007 11:04 AM


Re: A Summary
1. Beings are equal, and deserve equal rights to life and pursuit of happiness.
2. Morally Good = an action that increases the inner-feelings of another person.
With these two basic points, and enough information about a scenario, we can objectively determine if the
is good, or bad, or neutral.
1. err no beings are very clearly not equal ...we are all different .. in terms of skills, intelligence, oppertunity ,self motivation , beliefs, desires ,health , wealth , relationships...et al , and who says we deserver such right .. you and i may ( because that is our view of how we would like the world to be ) BUT many hold differing views about equality.
2. morally good = what ever you pick it to be
sorry but you two basic premisses are so arbitrary that you could claim thenmm as the rules of your new made up on the spot religion , they are not objective , and so will force the outcome you plan .
the "scenario" is not good bad or neutral .. its just a scenario .. you then chosse to aplly a label to it based on view of how the universe should be .
A rapist rapes a young girl against her will and makes her feel scared and vulnerable for the rest of her life.
Can we know this is good or bad? Yes we can.
If we say it's good, are we making it up? Yes, because it's not good.
If we say it's bad, are we making it up? No, because it is bad. It's bad because it's obvious that the rapist is forcing themselves onto the young girl against her will.
firstly let me say that rape is alway wrong , evil and bad .
However the problem with this example is that , and history can show us example that the above action was considered a good act by certian people/s and was activly premoted as a good act ....
again there are no absolute in the real world ..
Do you really think that anything anyone dreams up should be considered as good?
Do you really think that evil does not exist?
well if as you claim all
Beings are equal, and deserve equal rights to life and pursuit of happiness.
then anything anyone dreams up should be considered as good , that means the racist , the nationalist , the insane murderer, the religious fundimentalist , are all able to say what is good and have a equal right to follow that view ....
...and considered good by whom . ..me ,you , a random selection of people , a priest , a god ??
And what do you mean by evil having an existance .. by this are you saying evil is a force .. that you can find it as a partical or in energy form ...are you saying it is more than a label for extreme action carried out by human beings ?
ill stop there to let you answer ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Stile, posted 06-13-2007 11:04 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Stile, posted 06-14-2007 1:46 PM ikabod has replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4492 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 109 of 304 (405838)
06-15-2007 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Stile
06-14-2007 1:46 PM


Re: A Summary
I'm saying if you agree with the 2 above points, then we can objectively define what actions are good, bad, or neutral
but i am say that even if i agree with those two random statements , any thing we look at can NOT be objective , because you have already defined the conditions , all we can do is agree that we can apply label based on our chossen flavours .
we could say :
1. Beings are equal, and deserve equal rights to life and pursuit of happiness if they wear green hats evey day of the week .
2. Morally Good = an action that increases the inner-feelings of another person while they are wearing a green hat .
Now I'm say to you.... if you agree with the 2 above points, then we can objectively define what actions are good, bad, or neutral.
....the above is as valid as your statement .
as to if i agree with your 2 statements , firstly who am i to judge good from evil , for all you know i might be a really bad person , and so you would not want to be in agreement with me ..
secondly if i disagree with them , will you be happy with my reasons .. and why should you be happy with my reason's .. doe me agreeing with you validate your choice ?
if fact i disagree with 1.beings are not equal .. im am sorry but that is that way that the world we live in is , and there are some who very clearly do not deserver equal rights and happiness ..
Does this make me bad .. or just realistic and honest ??
as for point 2. , again i disagree morally good dose not have to =
an action that increases the inner-feelings of another person .
morally good actions can require you to do some thing that you think is a bad action by you and as far as you can tell will not increases the inner-feelings of another person . This is where you get the classic moral dilemma's of life .
because there are no absolutes , unless you look to " some higher power" you have to pick your own solution and then live with it be it good , bad , right or wrong .
......remember life is a four letter word .......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Stile, posted 06-14-2007 1:46 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Stile, posted 06-15-2007 10:41 AM ikabod has replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4492 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 114 of 304 (405883)
06-15-2007 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Stile
06-15-2007 10:41 AM


Re: A Summary
Yes, but they only "clearly do not deserve equal rights and happiness" because they themselves decide to forfeit the "equality" of other people.
sorry but you cant back track ..your statement was.....
"1. Beings are equal, and deserve equal rights to life and pursuit of happiness."
Now what you have failed to accept is that this is a aboslute .. there is no get out clause , no exceptions . all the totality of humanity ..the kings and serfs , loyalists and rebels , the greedy and the fair , OR do you mean all those you consider to be worth being counted as equal ?
as to the green hat issue .. thats the whole point .. any statement you use will be a absolute , it will allow no room for grey areas
We're back again to... people should be treated equally. Do you have another reason why they should not be?
ok reasons ..
some have greater needs that other and so need a unequal amount of resorces , or do you chosse not the help the weak ? disadvantaged ?
many ( if not all ) do not want to be treated eqaully .. they want higher status .. they want more for them , they want power ... sorry but this is a human trait .. the drive to , win to be better
treating all equal harms the elite .. those who has skills, talents , inteligence way above the norm .. they get dumb down to the equality level .
Your statement 2 . is also a absolute , it might as well read .....
"2. Morally Good = an action that is writen in the holy book as being a good act "
now ..
i kill Bob the enermy of Harry, Bob was a bad man because he did not treat Harry equally , Harry's inner feeling are incressed ....therfore following your logic killing Bob was a good act
.
Bob clearly was not covered by rule 1." because they themselves ( ie Bob) decide to forfeit the "equality" of other people.
and Harry felt happier so we get a tick on rule 2.
so using your rules we can kill anyone who are people that do not deserve to be treated equally, because they do not treat other people equally... how is this unequal .. as long as we increases the inner-feelings of another person .
can you spot you own words in that ..?
Classic moral dilemma's
would you allow the use of medical data from the Nazi death camps as a bases for a medical reserch program ... its is generalized research ..
pregnant woman in a car crash ... you can save mother OR child not both who do you save .. you know nothing about the mothers back ground ....pick now or its too late
you can clear a sereil child murderer of a child murder he did not commit .. and set him free , or you can lie and he will be locked up for life ...
you can end a ongoing long running conflict that has claimed 1000's of lives .. including children ..by ordering the blowing up of the home of the warlord .. however you can not tell who will be in the warlord home with him at the one time shot you have .. do you give the order.
you are the captain of a sinking ship .. if you order the men from the engine room then the loss of power will mean hundreds more will die , if you do not order the men from the engine room , until the hunderds are in life boats the men will die .. who do you let die ?
Yes these are extreme But any measure of moral good must work at the most extreme points to be of any use other wisse its a comfort blanket to cope with every day .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Stile, posted 06-15-2007 10:41 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Stile, posted 06-15-2007 2:55 PM ikabod has replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4492 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 120 of 304 (406009)
06-16-2007 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Stile
06-15-2007 2:55 PM


Re: A Summary
Remember, this topic exists because in a previous topic it was implied that I can't know what good is without God.
and that is what i have been trying to show you , any system you come up with , requires the operation of absolutes , but there are no absolutes in the real world , UNLESS you agree to the exsistance of "god" in waht ever size shape and form "god" really has.
What you are going is taking what you consider to be morally good and trying to put together a set of rules .. which have to be absolutes .. to validate yor view of good ..
You are starting from the wrong point you are allowing your self to KNOW what is good then shaping the rules .. the rules should come first and be independant of you , otherwise they are opinion not fact . If a act is only good if you know ALL the effects of it YOU cant know if its ever good .. unless you have godlike powers to see all .. you are just guessing and holding it up to a set of made up rules
look at your answers to the dilemmas .. some you have no sinlge answer to .. with mother and child you have either outcome as both good and bad ... you avoid the choice by splitting the event ...
you duck the murderer question by introducing neutral . is not failing to do the good act abad thing thus how can there be neutral ??.. with the ship you seem to think you have multi choices but its a simple A or B question .. and you have no answer to it ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Stile, posted 06-15-2007 2:55 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Stile, posted 06-17-2007 2:42 PM ikabod has replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4492 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 129 of 304 (406235)
06-18-2007 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Stile
06-17-2007 2:42 PM


Re: A Summary
You still haven't even shown that you don't reasonably disagree with them
You can say "I don't agree". And fine. But why? What's wrong with them? You haven't shown why they are invalid opinions. Or even why they aren't universal.
have you not been readying my posts ..?
beings are not all equal and should be treated according to their NEEDS , even if this does not bring them happyness ..
morally good does not equal incresse in inner feelings as we can clearly also IIF by doing bad acts ..
I'm not "avoiding" the choice, the choice is irrelevant to the system, that's all.
?????
morallity is all about MAKING the right choice .. that is why you have dilemma's .. because the choice is difficult to make .
Of course the system didn't make any choices. No one ever said it could. I never said "I have a system that always picks the best answer to any question". I said "I'm proposing a system that will identify what is good and what is bad". And that's exactly what it did. Even the options which contained both good and bad in them.
if your system does not pick the best how can it id good from bad .. is the best not the most good ??
and you are avoiding the "choice" by trying to breakdown the dilammes into parts , this is real life you can not do that they a single self contained events .. the boat WILL sink , you have to chosse who will die ,engine room crew or passaengers , there is no get out , pick .. who dies ...
The system doesn't have any force to make you do anything, it identifies what's good and bad. So that those who have motivations to do good, can do good without the fear of accidentally doing bad.
no it does not id good from bad .. all your rules do is validate your veiw of what is good ..AND you then limit it to where you claim you know all the condistions ..
you go OUT to dinner with your dad .. taking the last free table .. the person who cant gat a table the get into a rage ,crashs his car kill five people .. all because you wanted to IIF of your dad .. so your action was bad .. you where selfish in putting you dads inner feelings above other , you quite reasonablie could have realised the restarent would fill up on fathers day , and failing to get a table would be a major stress event , you did not think of others equal rights to happiness ...
Now the above is just silly ..you do not have godlike powers to foresee all outcomes .. thus you cas not see if a act is good or bad .. even with you set of rules .. so you rules become meaningless , except as a way or reinforcing views you already have .
which as the topic shows are not the same as others and not universal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Stile, posted 06-17-2007 2:42 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Stile, posted 06-18-2007 3:25 PM ikabod has replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4492 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 134 of 304 (406313)
06-19-2007 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Stile
06-18-2007 3:25 PM


Re: A Summary
beings are not equal this is a clear fact .. look at any sport you pick .. treating them as equal is artificial and you have no method of doing so .. if you give charity to the poor , what do you give to the rich ? you cant give everyone the equal right to happyness as they cant all marry the same movie star ,have the same yatch and live in the same palace ..
IF you give people what they NEED you most likey will not make them happy , BUT you are targeting your efforts and resocrces where they will have the best effect .... ie give the poor good quality food and health care , not cash grants they can spend , as they please on HD TV and DVD systems , EVEN though HD TV makes them happy , where are vitiam E suppliments does not .
morally good act .. i take away you cocane( drug of you choice) ... your inner feelings are reducced ...
OK now "prove" you statements to be valid ..
I've never said this system identifies any value to good things. It just shows if it's good rather than bad.
Oh so you are saying good and bad are absolutes , something cant be quite good , just good or bad .. there can be a good , goodest and bad and badest choice , just good and bad .. in that case PICK ships engine crew or passanges .. there is only good and bad which one is the good one ?
No, it validates the principles it's based on. The principles you still have yet to show why they aren't good. Or even why any significant portion of the world doesn't consider them good.
no they are your chossen statements , not principles , and i have shown rule 1 is not based in reality .. it might sound good , but its as valid as saying .. all have the right to live forever .. that would be a nice(good) thing to allow people to do .. but you cant do it in reality .. just as you cant make or even treat then equally .. you do not spend equal time earning money to feed you family as you do to feed the starving peoples of the world ..you do not take some one elses father out for a fathers day meal , or even a man with no children , you only look after your own father .. you treat people unequally , you have little choice in this .. its how the world works .
rule 2 incresse in inner feallings simple does not define a morally good act .. see cocane above ..
...then how can we possibly know if it's good or bad if we don't know how the inner-feelings of the being acted upon were affected?
and thats the whole point you cant KNOW .... all you can do is guess and hope , reguardless of what rules you make up to justifie you views ... or you can have belief and faith in a fixed moral system , with clearly defined good and bad handed to you by some "outside ,higher power" , and here you are not asked to reason what is good or bad it is given to you as absolutes.
What's the moral system you use in order to solve all these scenario's perfectly? Trust me, if your system's better than mine, I'll switch today.
i use my best judgement and honesty ( well i try very hard to ) and i accept that i can and do make mistakes .. i do not cloak my actions in labels of good or bad .. but in labels of what i think and feel is the correct thing to do , and that i can defend that action when asked with reasons ... not with cos its the "good" thing to do, or cos its on page 123 . and yes those reasons may be contradictory for different events .
ok the dilemas
would you allow the use of medical data from the Nazi death camps as a bases for a medical reserch program ... its is generalized research ..
No , i do not have the right to allow the legacy of those killed to be used in any way the could open the door for justifing such crimes .
pregnant woman in a car crash ... you can save mother OR child not both who do you save .. you know nothing about the mothers back ground ....pick now or its too late
save the mother she has more connections to other people in the world , and so more would be effected by her death .
lie so he is locked up , given the chance to protect other i feel its a moral duty to act even if it places myself is some degree of harm .
can end a ongoing long running conflict that has claimed 1000's of lives .. including children ..by ordering the blowing up of the home of the warlord .. however you can not tell who will be in the warlord home with him at the one time shot you have .. do you give the order.
not to it .. to do it is a clear act of agression ,agression breeds agression , you may also kill other who are not to blame ,and you have no certainy of killing the warlord
are the captain of a sinking ship .. if you order the men from the engine room then the loss of power will mean hundreds more will die , if you do not order the men from the engine room , until the hunderds are in life boats the men will die .. who do you let die ?
you order the engine room crew to remain .. they are part of the ships crew and have a duty to protect the passengers evn if this endangwers themselves
NOTE these are my answers , my views , i do not claim they are good or bad .. but as correct as i can come up with .
Are there 100% correct answers i dont know .. just as i dont know if there are absolute good answers .
life does not come with look up tables .. only religions do that ...
Edited by ikabod, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Stile, posted 06-18-2007 3:25 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Stile, posted 06-19-2007 3:06 PM ikabod has replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4492 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 138 of 304 (406442)
06-20-2007 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Stile
06-19-2007 3:06 PM


Re: More clarification
sorry to say this but GOT YOU !
just look at what you have done in you reply to the dilemma answers .. you have played god .. you have given yourself the power to know and anaylsis way beyond any human ... you HAD to base you responce on JUST the give info .. you do not have superpowers to slow down time so you can go look up the mothers life history .. or read her mind .. or be so all powerfull that all knowleged is yours ..you just dont know IF she ...
it was a single mother, no family left, no friends, and she was terminally ill (miraculously not affecting the baby) anyway. She dies the next day. The baby had a foster family waiting for it to take care of it and give it a full life where it would meet lots of friends and do many great things.
That sounds bad too.
.. life is harsh you dont get all the facts you get a small window to see through
so you morallity has to be able to cope with very limited info .. not infinate knowledge .
And sorry but as youtr rule one did not include the words treat .. and not get in the was . i think my point about it being a absolute statement is made either you mean exaclty that or you was to have a fexible staement to allow you grey morality ..
and im sorry but you DO
prevent anyone's pursuit of life or happiness if it doesn't abuse anyone elses pursuit of life or happiness.
you live a western world life style ..you create mass amounts of garbage , you consume way more that a equal share of the world resorces , this prevents / impedes others pursuit of happiness directly ... and yes we are all guilty ..
Not at all. I'm not denying the existance of values on good and bad. I'm just saying this system doesn't touch any of that. All it simply does is identify good and bad. Ships crew and passengers... each choice has good and bad aspects to it. Do you deny that observation? It seems relatively obvious. That my system correctly depicts each choice containing both good and bad seems to be in it's favour. If it didn't, than something's obviously wrong with it.
err how can you id good and bad with a system that does not touch on the existance of good and bad ?????
crew OR passenges .. remember you MUST pick one , therefore you must it matters not if one or the other has some good some bad aspects .. you must pick ONE .. you are allowed to be wrong ..all your system is doing is delaying the choice and giving you a out , by saying both contain some bad .. in the mean time the ship sinks and both die while you are debating .. now that is bad ...
your system does not give you a answer .. if it did you could tell me that answer .. if the system fails to provide a answer it is not fit for purpose .
My system doesn't rely on hope to identify good and bad. And it identifies good and bad very well, too.
firstly i disagree and further its not giving you any answers to the moral question and dilemma's crew or passengers mother or child which ??
Removing their cocaine IS a morally bad thing. Why do you think you should get to decide if someone should use cocaine or not?
hmm so allowing some one to kill them selves is morally good ??
if your brother went from a couple of drinks at the weekends to a bottle of gin every day would you not intervene .. ask them why , try to help them reduce the amount of alcohol they drink to a safe level .
do you think all drugs should be legal and unrestricted .. should 13 year olds be able to buy alcohol , cocaine , etc.
Morallity makes demands on us ,here to help others even if they do not want that help .. deal with peoples needs , even if this means not "treating" them equally .
My system doesn't rely on hope to identify good and bad. And it identifies good and bad very well, too.
I'm so very glad my moral system is not a "look-up" table.
err does your system not produce the same answer for the same input each time ?? thus it will produce look up tables compiled from the results .. and you could use it in advance to run events to add to you lookup table ....... or does it give different answers if you rerun a situatuiion ??
Edited by ikabod, : edit due to interupt ..
Edited by ikabod, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Stile, posted 06-19-2007 3:06 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Stile, posted 06-20-2007 4:11 PM ikabod has replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4492 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 143 of 304 (406567)
06-21-2007 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Stile
06-20-2007 4:11 PM


Re: But what IS good?
You're allowed to "win" as many battles in your mind as you please.
sorry do you not wish to debate any more ... or do you have no anwsers ...
We're talking about what IS good. Not what WE THINK or WE HOPE is good.
no we are talking about what you think is good , base on two rules you chose , rules which over many posts you have changed from
beings ARE equal .. to TREAT beings equally .. which is diffirent in so many ways ..
ANY action can be "good" or "bad" in different situations.
rules which give a different result for the same event ...hmm. ..because you are unable to know and therefore define and build into your rule system a way to cope with multitude of factors invold in each act
. ..
Morally Good = an action that increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon.
How a being's inner-feelings react to a situation are personally subjective to them. The responses are not a "look-up" table. However, you can look them up (by getting the information from the being acted upon) and objectively discover if the action was good or bad.
The same action, on the same person, can easily be good one time, and bad the next
... so how is this knowing what IS (your capitals) good .. does your system give space time coordinate for each considered act .. and what happens is some one changes their mind ..and now says that the act lowered their inner feelings
does that mean the good act becomes bad or was it always bad .. will it chance again if the person has third or fourth thoughts ??
what happens if the person is insane and like feeling emotional pain.. does that really turn bad acts into good cos the madman says they incresse his inner feelings??
The system has nothing to do with telling someone what to choose. Therefore, the system is rightfully useless when telling someone what to choose.
The system is equally rightfully useless when identiying plant-life.
The system identifies if an action on a being is good or bad.
The person, after good/bad identification, can choose to be good, choose to be bad, or choose whatever they want.
These actions involve more than 1 person. We'ed need a way to measure the value of good in order to decide these questions objectively. This system proposes nothing of the sort.
ok follow the quote line one/two vs line6/7 so does the system allow one to choose or not ?
so your system only works if only one person is affected by the act ... so may be a hermit and hmm a wandering sales man high on a mountain ??
people are not isolated ,what happens to one affects others .. this is why picking the ships crew to die is a morally good act ..because the passengers are effected by the act as well .. the act is the whole not a isolated part .. you system suffers the classic fault .. it works well(for you ) in the lab but is useless in the real world ..
any moral system has to work in the real world ... or have such power and backing to change the world to its shape .
What if my brother was 105 years old? What if he lived in constant pain, had seen everything he possibly wanted to see in life, and knew he was a constant stress on everyone he loved? What if he than wanted a bottle of gin every day in order to kill himself because he wanted to leave this world? Why is it bad to help him?
ok lets fisrt us your rules ... hmm well he is not treating me equally and is breaking my rights to happiness (are you not sad about him too) and he is not incressing my inner feelings thus it is a bad act ...
ok real world .. age is irrelevent i do not discriminate by age .. he is in constant pain .. so are many people and they live with it ...how can he know he has seen all of life ?? tomorrow is unwriten ..he may be able to save a life tomorrow is that not worth living for ? .. so he is a constant stress .. we love him as a human being , we accept that price , its a morally good thing to do .. drinking a bottle of gin a day is a slow way to die , and we will have to deal with the fall out of his drunken state for a long time while suffeering the pain or seeing him slowly kill himself .. further rsuch a metod of suicide is very selfish in the pronlonging our agony.... if he truley wish to die why doe he not use a gun or jump off a tall building ... so how can it not be a bad thing ..
find this cause , do not let it be masked by drink , and deal with the issues ... do the morally good thing ...
inaction is a crime ......would you let a 3 year old play with a bucket of live grenades in the middle of a minefield if it incressed that childs inner feelings .
ok one last time
Morally good = an action that increases the inner-feelings of the being acted upon
i grow some very powerfull "grass" in my greenhouse .. i package it , i go out and find a group of people who want it and i GIVE it away free , this makes them happy ..is this morally good .
i create a new strain of the flu virus 10 million time more deadly and 100 million times more infectious ,i package it , i go out and find a group of people who want it and i GIVE it away free , this makes them happy ..is this morally good.
i have trated all equally , i have not infringed anyones right to life and happiness
now as your system only looks at the act on the single person affected by the act ,i think both a good acts , as your system does not worry about the concequences ...
gosh i want to do good .. so dealer of cheap drugs , or weapons ,or porn please tell me when to stop ..
your system fails because
1. its rules are not water tight , they have to bend to cope with reality .
2. they are poorly defined .. how do YOU treat beings equally ?, does not knowing / meeting them allow you not to account for them in your actions ?
3. you base moral good on someone feeling , insolated from the rest of the world (how), with no way to measure such feelings .. , with the chance the person my change their mind
4. with out knowing if that person is reaction "normally" to the act , with out knowing if the person is capable of experiencing the correct feelings , or is able to express how they feel accuratly .
5. you admit the same act will give differing results .. so you cannot make any reasonable predictions apon it ... thus you can "test" it , or rely on it to make future choices
6. it is not able to deal with events involving mutlipe effecties from a single act
7.it fails to deal with the most well know moral dilemmas ie real world events .
Edited by ikabod, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Stile, posted 06-20-2007 4:11 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Stile, posted 06-21-2007 4:00 PM ikabod has replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4492 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 144 of 304 (406578)
06-21-2007 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by pelican
06-20-2007 8:30 PM


Re: motivation is everything
sorry no room for debate i agree with you too much ..).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by pelican, posted 06-20-2007 8:30 PM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by pelican, posted 06-21-2007 7:46 PM ikabod has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024